The Russia-Ukraine war has entered its fourth year. Recent developments indicate that while the conflict is closer than ever to a cease-fire, it is simultaneously further from achieving lasting peace. One of the main reasons for this paradox is the change in the United States’ foreign policy approach to the war following Donald Trump’s return to the presidency.
Trump and his Vice President JD Vance’s infamous hosting of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the Oval Office showed that a hierarchical international order is about to replace the principle of sovereign equality – a fundamental norm in international relations, marked in the U.N. Charter. This impression was reinforced by the condescending tone adopted by both Trump and Vance toward Zelenskyy, followed by a temporary suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine.
The actions of the Trump administration may be explained through one of the most fundamental tenets of economics: the persistent tension between limited resources and unlimited needs. The current international system has evolved beyond its foundational rule, now driven by power and interest-based dynamics. Analyzing the issue solely through “needs” is insufficient, as the global order has shifted from meeting demands to competition for resource control through power struggles, leading to a continuous geopolitical cycle.
Interest in Ukraine’s resources
The Trump administration’s growing interest in Ukraine’s valuable mineral resources and, more recently, its nuclear power plants should be evaluated not only within the context of the U.S.’ economic and strategic interests but also in light of the “National Energy Emergency” declared on Jan. 20, 2025. During his presidency, Trump publicly stated that he had requested $500 billion worth of rare earth elements from Ukraine. Although this amount was later reduced, the underlying principle of “quid pro quo” – providing aid in exchange for tangible returns – has reshaped the U.S.’ relations with both Ukraine and the European Union.
In contrast to the previous administration under President Joe Biden, where support was often granted unconditionally, Trump has framed such acts as transactions that must be compensated. While it initially appeared that Ukraine’s mineral revenues would be used to repay past military assistance, this approach evolved over time, influenced by Trump’s business-oriented worldview. As a result, a new framework emerged in which the U.S. sought to claim up to 50% of Ukraine’s future revenues derived from its natural resources. This development directly contradicts another fundamental principle, unconditional aid in international relations, representing a manifestation of economic hegemony.
Specifically, the effort aims to counterbalance China’s dominant position in global markets for rare earth elements and other strategic minerals. Until recently, the focus had primarily been on Ukraine’s underground wealth, including critical minerals such as titanium, lithium, rare earth elements and manganese. However, Trump’s latest initiatives have extended this interest beyond subsurface resources to include surface-level assets, technological infrastructure and energy production systems. This shift demonstrates that the matter at hand now encompasses not only raw materials but also control over energy generation and advanced technological domains.
At this very juncture, the concept of geo-colonialism – a modern form of exploitation in the 21st century – becomes increasingly salient. States are no longer solely concerned with the raw material resources of a given geographical area; instead, they shape their foreign policies around the full spectrum of strategic assets that such territories offer – including energy infrastructure, transportation corridors, digital systems and even administrative structures. Within this broader context, the issue of energy plants in Ukraine comes to the fore. Trump’s attention on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station is particularly noteworthy, as he proposed that the ownership of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants be transferred to the U.S. on the grounds of long-term security considerations.
Fight for Ukrainian NPPs
The White House has consistently used the plural term “plants” rather than referring solely to Zaporizhzhia. This linguistic nuance suggests a broader strategic vision that extends beyond a single facility to include Ukraine’s entire nuclear energy infrastructure. Thus, it appears that the U.S. is preparing not just for limited involvement in Zaporizhzhia, but for a more expansive role in Ukraine’s national energy production and transmission systems.
The Zaporizhzhia NPP, which began operations in 1984 with four reactors and saw two additional units completed by 1995, is the largest nuclear power plant in Ukraine and Europe, and the ninth-largest in the world, with a capacity of 6,000 MW. Since 2022, the plant has been under Russian occupation, making it not only a critical component of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure but also a strategic asset of continental significance.
Although Zelenskyy has unequivocally declared that all nuclear facilities in the country belong to the Ukrainian people, the prospect of U.S. control over the Zaporizhzhia NPP could be interpreted as a strategic move aimed at liberating the plant from Russian control. Moreover, U.S. investment in the facility and support for its modernization could be presented as a net benefit for Ukraine. In this sense, nuclear energy infrastructure has now joined rare mineral agreements as a central subject of geopolitical negotiation.
However, any scenario involving external control over the plant must account for Russia’s likely response. As reported during the early stages of U.S.-Russia normalization talks in Riyadh, discussions purportedly included proposals involving Ukrainian territorial concessions. In this context, although the Zaporizhzhia facility may appear to represent a strategic opportunity for the U.S., for Russia, it constitutes a critical national security interest.
New opportunities for the U.S.
The “National Energy Emergency” declared by the Trump administration was driven by concerns over global energy supply instability. This declaration aimed to reinforce U.S. dominance in the energy sector, framing U.S. interest in Ukraine’s energy infrastructure as a matter of security intertwined with geopolitical and economic ambitions.
Modernizing Ukraine’s nuclear energy capacity to enable electricity exports to European markets presents a dual opportunity for the U.S. On the one hand, it opens up a potentially lucrative energy market; on the other, it enhances Washington’s political leverage over the region. This strategy can also be interpreted as the energy-focused extension of Trump’s MAGA doctrine. Securing access to and control over Ukrainian energy resources would strengthen Trump’s global projection of power while also offering the U.S. strategic advantages vis-a-vis both China and Russia.
There is also a clear security rationale underpinning these initiatives. The Chornobyl disaster continues to occupy a prominent place in global collective memory. Nuclear power plants, in the event of an accident or sabotage, have the potential to become weapons of mass destruction. Accordingly, the U.S.’ desire to bring Ukraine’s nuclear facilities under its security oversight can be framed not only as a geopolitical maneuver but also as a rational step from the perspective of global security.
Finally, recent discussions surrounding a potential partial cease-fire in the Russia-Ukraine war have increasingly centered on energy infrastructure. In this context, the U.S.’ emergence as a “protective actor” for Ukraine’s energy systems may be considered a precondition for meaningful progress toward a cease-fire. Establishing mutual security guarantees to prevent both Russia and Ukraine from targeting critical energy infrastructure contributes to reshaping and legitimizing the U.S. role in the region. Therefore, U.S. interest in Ukraine’s energy facilities – especially Zaporizhzhia – should not be seen merely as a geopolitical maneuver but as an integral component of a multilayered strategic agenda.